Just last week, Tesla Motors revealed the all-electric Model X crossover, which is the follow-up to its Model S. It has been less than a week since the EV's introduction, and it has already achieved star status with car lovers everywhere.

According to The Detroit News, Tesla received $40 million in pre-sales of the all-electric Model X just one day after unveiling the car. It was also the third most searched term on Google.

"On Thursday evening, the night of the reveal, traffic to teslamotors.com increased 2,800 percent," said Tesla. "Two-thirds of all visitors were new to the website."

The all-electric Model X was introduced for the first time on February 9. The new EV features dual motor all wheel drive, the choice between a 60 or 85 kWh battery, and falcon doors. The Model X can sprint from 0 to 60 in about 4.4 seconds, and offers a rear-mounted 300 HP motor and an optional 150 HP front-mounted motor. The driving range is between 214 and 267 miles.

Price hasn't been announced for the Model X yet, but Tesla said it will be competitively priced with other premium SUVs.

While the Model X has been receiving plenty of attention, it's not the only one. The Model S, which is Tesla's full-sized battery electric sedan that is expected to be delivered in mid 2012, had a 30 percent boost in reservations last week after the Model X was revealed.

Tesla initially entered the electric vehicle arena with the Roadster, which is a $100,000 two-seater that launched in 2008. The Model S is Tesla's second electric vehicle, which features a 40 kWh lithium-ion battery pack (or 85 kWh battery pack in the top-end model), 160-mile range (300 miles on the top-end model), and a $57,400 to $87,400 price tag.

Model X production will begin at the end of 2013, with market launch scheduled for 2014. It is expected to qualify for the $7,500 tax credit, and Tesla hopes to produce 10,000 to 15,000 units annually.

quote: Facts can be twisted, so can numbers. I prefer to focus on the pure, righteous, and self evident truths to which I hold dear.

So, you prefer to argue from blind belief? And this is supposed to be "good" when discussing technology and science how again? Again, I am confused. You accuse others of ignorance, while professing a deep pride in your own.

As I've said in the past, there are plenty of fields and places where blind belief is tolerated and maybe even encouraged (politics is one that leaps to mind), but Science and to a less extent Technology revolve around the constant questioning of assumptions through data gathering.

Oh please when has Daily Tech ever been about science and technology? Almost every article here overlaps with politics or ideology in some way. And if not, that's usually where the discussions on them end up.

And again, it's not blind belief. I'm 100% correct.

When EV's are roaming the planet, Keeir, THEN you can say I was wrong. Only then, and not until then.

I think there are many fine websites and forums where your strict adherence to science, facts, and math would be most welcome. Frankly, you're wasting your time on Daily Tech.

quote: Oh please when has Daily Tech ever been about science and technology? Almost every article here overlaps with politics or ideology in some way. And if not, that's usually where the discussions on them end up.

Usually because someone logically challenged trys to use ideology to pass a technical judgement.

For example only

Government should not pick winners and losers. (Ideology)Current Government selects PHEV, and EVs. (Fact)...Therefore PHEV and EVs will not work. (Unsupported Opinion)

QED, there can be no other option!

quote: And again, it's not blind belief. I'm 100% correct.

Isn't inability to admit the possibility one is wrong considered on the symptoms of blind belief?

quote: When EV's are roaming the planet, Keeir, THEN you can say I was wrong. Only then, and not until then.

Hmmm... EVs roam the planet right now. I saw 3 on my way to work today. Oh, and 1 PHEV. And do you count Electric motorcyles as EVs? Saw two of those. Guess I can say your wrong then?

quote: That's an absolute FACT. Please show me where the Constitution grants this power to the Government. Where?

Government (even US government) existed before the Constitution. The position that the Constitution represents the high water mark for any and all government structure, is in itself ideology. Nor is it truely sound to say actions outside the Constitution in reality are prohibited. The US government has a storied history of acting outside the Constitution that started pretty much before the ink was dry.

quote: Is this your idea of being cute? You know full well what that phrase means.

quote: Government (even US government) existed before the Constitution.

That's a meaningless statement with no bearing on anything.

quote: The position that the Constitution represents the high water mark for any and all government structure, is in itself ideology

???

It's the high water mark for THIS countries government structure. If you don't agree with the Constitution, we can just stop talking now. Because I have nothing to say to you. Following the rule of law is NOT "ideology".

So your position is that I'm wrong because the Constitution doesn't count? Well I guess you ARE a flaming Liberal then.

quote: If you don't agree with the Constitution, we can just stop talking now.

If someone doesn't agree with you, then they are automatically wrong? Slipping back into the symptoms of blind belief...

Sorry, there are many good things in the Constitution. Many many good things. Doesn't mean the document is perfect.

Since your into the Constitution so firmly,

Did Lincoln follow the Constitution in his day?

We can go round and round, but simply put,

The US Government has only loosely followed the Constitution for hundreds of years. This has been true regardless of the political affiliation of the White House, Congress, or the people on the Supreme Court. To claim any action outside Constitution is illegal and should be barred is an IDEALISTIC statement about an IDEAL world. Thus IDEOLOGY since in practice, this has not been a reality for a very long time.

But whether you view this as "fact" or "ideology" is not entirely material.

It has little bearing on the technical or economic feasibility of a technology. Which is my point. People too often take unrelated ideology/facts into their statements as if they constitute proof.

Here's another your well familiar with

Burning Oil Pollutes the Environment (Fact)Protecting the Environment is worth any cost (Ideology)...Therefore everyone should us EVs! (Unsupported Opinion)or even worseTherefore the government should steal money from people and give it to others to support EVs! (Unsupported Opinion)

You aren't even credible anymore. I never said the Constitution is perfect. Guess what? It doesn't have to be. If you need to change it, make an Amendment.

Now please show me the Amendment that grants them that power?

quote: Did Lincoln follow the Constitution in his day?

No Lincoln was a tyrant who smashed the Constitution, suspended our most sacred rights, and declared war on his own people without even trying to sue for peace.

In his mind I understand he was only doing what he thought he had to. So I guess that made him a noble tyrant.

The end result of Lincolns decisions was a larger more infringing federal government and the weakening of states rights. But alas, hindsight is 20/20.

quote: To claim any action outside Constitution is illegal and should be barred is an IDEALISTIC statement

That's your opinion.

You're trying to make some moral relativist argument where ideologies aren't valid, so taking a stand on one is never a point of fact. Sorry sir, you fail on that. Ideology and facts are NOT always mutually exclusive.

quote: The US Government has only loosely followed the Constitution for hundreds of years.

First off, that's wrong. Hundreds of years ago we were NOT a "loosely" Constitutional country.

Secondly, if today is evidence of what happens when we stray from the document for so long, that's a pretty good indication of where we went wrong.

quote: You're trying to make some moral relativist argument where ideologies aren't valid, so taking a stand on one is never a point of fact. Sorry sir, you fail on that. Ideology and facts are NOT always mutually exclusive.

I never said they were. I said that ideological "facts" are not good basis for evaluating technology, even if true.

quote: Hundreds of years ago we were NOT a "loosely" Constitutional country.

Really? How about Alexander Hamilton's National Bank? Didn't that get established in 1791? I am fairly sure Hamilton supported a wide range of actions that were fairly loosely based on Constitution. Unless I have trouble counting, 2012-1791=221 years. Hundreds.

Isn't the whole argument about "implied" powers almost directly contrary to the Tenth Amendment? How could we claim that the US was strictly Constitutional when before Ratification was even completely people were using "implied" powers arguments to justify actions. The Federal Government could not even stay inside the STATED powers for the ratification period!

Sorry, I can't agree that the US was ever strictly Constitutional. But even if it was at some date in the past, it is no longer. Should we return to a more strict form? Sure. But that's ideology at this point. Clearly there is no real world mechanism that has acted to force the US government to stay strictly adhered to the Constitution.